Forum:Earl's relations to each
User:Fandyllic made the request after the last edit war that instead of doing that, we ought to come to his TalkPage before hand when either of us want to add or remove contested information. User:HPR1 ignored that while I'm coming here to say that no proof ever been shown within the show itself or credible behind-the-scene material on how the each Earl of Grantham was related to the previous. I would request permission please to removed that since it's speculative and misleading since there are too many pausible possibilities to mention them all and not really that important either way. Nobody want "possible" written all over the place especially as the possible refers to one situation being accurate when it's just accurate to state "possible not" so the compromise is leave it out. A "note" is misleading and too long since there really isn't any information to state that isn't logical (any contributor can figure out that Earl might be his oldest son or not so it's useless to state) CestWhat (talk) 07:15, February 2, 2013 (UTC) Every Earl from Earl 3 downwards has been father to son. Heiress that had Downton Place had to have married Earl 4 as only her descendants ''can inherit it; if she had no descendant, then it could be a cousin of her (or an aunt, uncle, etc) on the side of the family that she inherited Downton Place from. Earl 4 married Heiress of Downton Place - they had 5th Earl, who married (5th Countess is Violet's mother-in-law) and they had 6th Earl who married Violet; they then had Robert, who was 7th Earl. See? With brains - and the usage of the brain - we can be 99.9999999999999999999% sure that from Earl 3 downwards it WAS father to son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 07:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :So that use of brain remark suppose to be a knock against me? Real classy. "with brains" is just the latest example of trying to hide a total lack of evidence or understanding of concepts being discussed. All you are doing is making statements without anything to back them out. Of course that heiress has descendants. Nobody despites that since Robert is her great-grandson so this point about her having no children is just weird. The situation I gave was that her husband was never an Earl himself and all you have done is despite because you use your brain or whatever (congrats). :Rose wasn't never an only child. Characters don't walk into frame and announce all their relatives. "Remember your Great Aunt Roberta" only shows that Mary, Sybil and Edith are her great-nieces and says nothing about how Violet is related her. If Violet is referring to her brother's wife, then she would say the exact same thing. That isn't an opinion, just obvious fact. If I wanted, by your logic, I can make these vague "with brain" or "it must be" stuff and just write ''Roberta is the wife of Violet's brother since all you need as proof is apparently nothing. 1) The original discussion about the woman owning Downton Place came as PROOF that the earldom went from Father to son (she married 4, they had 5, who had 6, who had Robert because he owns Downton Place; it was NEVER EVER EVER about her having children!'' EVER! READ! BRAINS! USE!!!!!!'' :Even User:Fandyllic tried to explain to User:HPR1 before about how speculative shouldn't be put in since not only can it be wrong, but then it has to be removed. You like to act like I alone am the problem, but you are igoring both that advice as well as making edits with first getting them approved by User:Fandyllic as he/she requested in order to prevent edit warring. I'm trying to adhere to that request. CestWhat (talk) 10:53, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :!"£$%^&*(*&^%$£"£$%^&*()_)(*&^%$£"!"£$%^&*()*&^%$£$%^&*( You are freaking well impossible! Literally, you are the most incorrigible little £$%^&*( I have ever met! :2) Rose, when she was introduced in Episode 3.08 was said to be "Violet's great-niece" and Susan and Hugh's child; there were NO ''mentions of siblings in that episode, so as far as we knew, she ''WAS ''an only child ''UNTIL the 2012 Christmas Special which showed she had two siblings. :3) If you were to view the "Roberta" Page, you will find that I did not make it, and that the person who did is the one you should be nagging at. All we know is that Roberta is Violet's elder sister born sometime in the early 1840s who, in 1857, Loaded the Guns at Lucknow. :4) Susan and Roberta - it is likely (and very probable) that Roberta is Susan's mother and the "great aunt in 1860 who married a Gordon"; this makes Roberta's surname Gordon. Whatever the case, there is definitely one sister, Roberta - there may be a second sister as Susan says that Violet is "My mother's sister" when speaking to her - while not confirmed, it is about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that she is referring to Roberta. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:49, February 2, 2013 (UTC) Ignoring all the insults, again, no proof as been offer. What's annoying (it's usually annoying dealing with a contributor causes people to leave this wiki) is this has been dealt with before months ago. Even User:Fandyllic told User:HPR1 this isn't cannonical information (just writing doesn't make it so). I would request that User:HPR1 stop making these edits and wait for our admin to sort this out. Just for the record I'm doing that since edit warring with just happen. This is what I think goes missing in the threats of violence. They are the actions of a bully and not an out-of-blue solely because he was provoked thing. User:HPR1 acts as if anybody must defer to "brains" which is just a jerk move. Throughout all all this discussion, User:HPR1 even writes "while not confirmed" or "very likely" without even noting that it proves the whole point that it's speculative. "Very likely" stuff isn't a note or behind-the-scenes material, it's fanfic. CestWhat (talk) 17:27, February 2, 2013 (UTC) Fine. Fine. I've had it. Be a nuisance then. Consider all value you had with me gone. End of conversation. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:18, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :Again, not new. User:HPR1 makes this "I'm done therefore I win" stuff all the time. I don't care. User:HPR1 has added misleading information without first getting it approved here (which User:MerryStar and User:Fandyllic told him not). Again, I ask that it be removed since "very likely" isn't a source or worth noting. CestWhat (talk) 18:26, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :Actually, that was a "I can't be bothered to argue with someone who is stuck entirely in the wrong, so I will end it before I say something I will regret" argument ending, ok? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:46, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :So because you are too immature too not threaten violence again, what... You haven't proven anything. You do get what speculation is, right? You do get why speculation, especially weak stuff, shouldn't be in the articles? I think that even User:Fandyllic would agree that you simply stating "I'm done" isn't a reason that the information in question ought be kept in the articles. 19:10, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :Yes, sure, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:25, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :If I did an edit war (I won't), you be typing on and on about getting the admin's approval. You were the one who demanded that I get the admin to weigh in on stuff before so I don't get why you don't want to it. Of course you'd like it to be over. You did what you were told not to do and somehow don't seem to notice this. You haven't proven anything and this stuff was discussed with many contributors including User:Fandyllic agree that we don't know who Roberta or each of the Earls are related to the central family and you just ignoring that isn't a fair solution. You were completely mean and personal in this conversation and somehow how want to get patted on the back that you didn't make any treats. I'm trying to avoid an edit war by doing exactly what the admins ask, instead of removing you the inaccurate information, come and discuss it here. CestWhat (talk) 20:40, February 2, 2013 (UTC) :For one moment get off your "high and mighty" perch and look at what we know. :Robert is 7th Earl; Matthew is his third cousin once removed - this means that they both descend from the 3rd Earl; Matthew confirmed this, but and now here is the thing that makes me right and you wrong, ''for Robert to be the 7th Earl is must have passed from father to son. Before you go "NO! WRONG!" and try to interfere, here is the proof: :The 4th Earl had a brother - Matthew's ancestor; Reginald's great-grandfather. :The 4th Earl had a son - 5th Earl, who had a cousin, Reginald's grandfather. :The 5th Earl had a son - 6th Earl, who had a second cousin, Reginald's father. :The 6th Earl had a son - Robert, who had a third cousin, Reginald himself. :Robert is Earl 7; his third cousin once removed is/was Matthew. :Thus, as you can see there, I have proven that it ''must have gone father to son for the titles and relationship to be right. So, if you'll allow me for a moment,'' IN! YO! FACE!'' Nyahahaha! :As for Roberta, well, she must be Violet's sister, since Robert only had one uncle - James Crawley's father (who had James, who had Patrick); James Crawley's mother would be his aunt (and in turn a great-aunt of Mary, Sybil and Edith) and she is dead by the beginning of the series. :Yes, you could say she was still "great-aunt Roberta" but here is why you would be totally, utterly and completely wrong and dumber than the dumbest thing to have ever existed in all of Dumbtopia - Roberta is known to have fought at Lucknow in 1857. :In 1857 Violet was not married to her husband, so if it was his sister - or sister-in-law - who fought at Lucknow, Violet would not know, thus the woman who fought at Lucknow - namely Roberta - must be Violet's sister; that is how Violet would know. :Whether she is the woman who married Mr Gordon, or whether she is Susan's mother, is unknown; there may be a third sister in the pack, but that's irregardless in this situation. :As you can see, using brains, logic, and the show itself, I have proven my points. Nyahahaha! :Point to me, I think. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:37, February 2, 2013 (UTC) Please stop calling me dumb or unwitty variations of. I've tried not to do that to you and I don't think it's fair that any contributor be allowed to call others "dumb" no matter the circumstance.As good as "Nyahahah" is, you still haven't proven anything. Plausible isn't the same thing as proven. Differing to the idea as the one and only one situation is just limited. Nothing in that whole post is actual proof. CestWhat (talk) 00:41, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Actually, all of it ''is proof. I got thast from what is know (Robert's close family - e,g. James, Patrick, James's mother, etc) as well as the relationship between Robert and Reginald (Third cousins); it makes absolute sense - you're just unwilling to see it because you don't want to admit you're wrong; after all, I'm still waiting for two apologies! HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 06:17, February 3, 2013 (UTC) : Again, "it makes absolute sense" is another way of stating it's plausible and (again) plausible isn't the same thing as proof. "Making sense" isn't proof. It's a theory. You aren't writing that Robert and Matthew were third cousins, once removed, but stuff that unrelated to it since you haven't made any connection through dialogue in the episode or credible b-t-s material. You've ignore that you're logic doesn't rule out other ways that the Earls can be related to each other. You are wrong that you've offered any proof. Again and again. The admin already state that before and also asked that you not put information on article without clearing with you ignored. CestWhat (talk) 06:34, February 3, 2013 (UTC) ::I don't remember ever telling anyone to tl;dr on my talk page, but even if I did, I'm moving it to the forums. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 2 Feb 2013 11:16 PM Pacific : ::Oh and I didn't read it. However, I got the general sense of the whole nonsense, so I propose something more systematic. List each earl in a section and debate the facts or lack thereof in each section. This massive above gobbledygook is not comprehensible. I will make the sections. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 2 Feb 2013 11:19 PM Pacific : You did write to put any contested information edits on your TalkPage. Quote from my TalkPage, "''CestWhat, please mention your reversions of HarryPotterRules1's edits on '''my talk page' before you do them." and "''If you have an issue with one of his edits you need to '''talk to Fandyllic' and he can undo or fix it as needed." Think it's a bit unfair to call it nonsense since you wanted me to not do edit wars so I didn't. CestWhat (talk) 07:38, February 3, 2013 (UTC) The many Earl of Granthams and their relations to each other Have at it.! 1st Earl of Grantham Original holder of the title; became Earl of Grantham in 1772. Father of the 2nd Earl. 2nd Earl of Grantham Son of the Second Earl. Has to be son as cannot be brother/nephew since title belongs to 1st earl's offspring and descendants only; brother/nephew is not offspring or descendant. :Grandsons are also direct male heirs of the original title-holder 3rd Earl of Grantham Father of 4th Earl and father of Matthew's Great-Great-Grandfather. :No proof 4th Earl of Grantham Son of the Third Earl. Died prematurely, wife lived in Dower House. :No proof of dying prematurely. "Imply" how, "by dying" doesn't have implication be him being dead save Downton Abbey estate whether he was age 19 or 91. 5th Earl of Grantham Son of 4th Earl. Wife lived in Crawley house as mother-in-law was still alive when 5th Earl died. :The Dower House could have been damaged by a fire. She could have been just weird and preferred simple house in the village to the grand Dower House. Her sister-in-law, cousin-in-law, aunt by marriage could have been the Dowager Countess. No proof of anything beyond she lived at Crawley House in Downton village. 6th Earl of Grantham Son of 5th Earl; husband of Violet, father of Robert and Rosamund. Died between 1890 and 12th April 1912. :"Running Downton for thiry years" line doesn't state the Violet's husband was the Earl of Grantham when she married him. They could have married and then inherited the title afterwards. Boils down It boils down to uncontested dialogue from the episodes. *The Earl of Grantham immediately before Robert was his dad. (Ep. 1.01) *Robert and Matthew were third cousins, once removed (Ep. 1.01) *Matthew's great-great grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl (Ep. 3.01). That's it for genealogical information. About the only things that we get from that are that Robert's a direct-line descendant of the 3rd-Earl and that the 4th Earl had to be a son or grandson of the 3rd Earl because of Matthew's great-great grandfather and his descendants would be in-line for the Earldom of Grantham before an uncle, great-uncle, nephew, cousin, etc... (the one real way to say a son or grandson is ''more likely then the other) The fact that Robert's father's mother lived at Crawley House in the village rather than the Dower House only kind of seem to be to imply that she wasn't a Countess of Grantham in her own right. It would help to explain why she and Violet didn't get along. Again, that's just a fanfic theory of mine, but it's plausible. CestWhat (talk) 07:58, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Adding this tree just as a demostration that nothing within it disproves anything that's said in the show or b-t-s material, yet except for Robert from his dad, never does a son inherit the Earldom of Grantfam from his father. Just posting one, but if you'd other to further the point there are too many plausible ways for the Earldom to be inherited so state one way or the other, feel free to ask. Looking at the tree, Robert and Matthew would be third cousins, once removed. I'm not trying to say how the Earls are related to each other, just that isn't anything from credible sources that would tell you, User:HPR1, me or anybody else how they would so we shouldn't try on the actual articles. We know that Robert's was Earl for at least 30 years (we don't know if he was the Earl of Grantham at time of his wedding to Violet or not), but there is no such thing as an "average" length of time since you can look at the British monarchs, some reigned for decades while other reigned for less then 5 years (Queen Jane was 9 days in July, poor girl). And Queen Victoria's two immediate successors were her uncles and then grandfather Mad King George III who inherited from his grandfather George II. CestWhat (talk) 08:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC) :Just adding this since it's pretty on point and what I've type about in this long discussion. http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fandyllic?diff=prev&oldid=15421 CestWhat (talk) 09:01, February 3, 2013 (UTC) :I can immediately contest one thing; Robert is the 7th Earl, so his father is the 6th Earl; this means that Violet's mother-in-law, was the wife of the 5th Earl. :Murray, in Episode 3.07, says that the "Fourth Earl only saved Downton by dying" implying that he died prematurely; thus, his wife (countess 4), lived in The Dower House. When her son, Earl 5 died, she was still alive, thus Countess 5 had to live in Crawley House. That is why I said, from EARL 3 DOWNWARDS it goes from son to son. :3 had four; 4 had five, died premature; 5 had 6, then died, leaving wife in Crawley House; 6 married Violet and had Robert. :As you can see, I have sufficiently proven myself to be correct - your tree above is wrong. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:36, February 3, 2013 (UTC) My point is further demonstrated here- HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:56, February 3, 2013 (UTC) : Again (and again) I would to know if this is having any impact on User:Fandyllic. I'm putting out alternative theory not to state "therefore I have proof I'm right." It's just to show "we don't know" which is fine. "We don't know" isn't the same thing as being dumb. Again, I think it was pretty rotten to be call dumb all the time. For example: whatever I thought, I didn't call User:HPR1 names when he was running around demanding I and everybody else believe him that Violet's husband's first name was Patrick because of his own very poor reading comprehension which nobody but him was confused by. :I wrote that uncontested "dialogue" and the 7th Earl comes from Jessica Fellowes' companion books, not dialogue. 4th Earl's death saved the estate doesn't imply that it was premature and either way, that doesn't have any genealogical implication. (site: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fandyllic?diff=prev&oldid=15421) Regardless, I would please like to know if I have proven a case we don't know how the Earls are related to each other to you, User:Fandyllic? If not, what may I do to show it further or what point am I not getting across? CestWhat (talk) 22:00, February 3, 2013 (UTC)